Death is Not a Bad Thing

Most people don’t want to die today. In fact, their fear of death is at the peak. Most of these people classify the death as a bad thing. This has caused a colossal of arguments among both the religious and philosophers. Some who argues that death is a bad and those say death is actually not a bad thing, and there is not a single reason why it should be feared – that is if there is actually no an afterlife ( Luper, 2009) . Afterlife is something that is equally debatable. Nonetheless, it is essential that it is noted when discussing death. 

According to hedonists, ancient philosophers, death was and still is not a bad thing, especially to the dead person. However, they also claimed that it could be bad for the friends and family of the dead person – people close to a dead person. This is because when a person dies, the people who are left with the bargain of pain are those who love him or her ( Luper, 2009) . The hedonist also said dying could only be bad for a person if he or she undergoes through a painful death. It is commonly known that death sometimes cannot be as pleasant as many people think some people die through accidents, torture, and illness, among many others. However, the state of death is not bad unless there is an afterlife (Luper, 2009). This paper will, therefore, look at two arguments – Deprivation and symmetrical arguments – that prove that if there is no an afterlife, then death is not a bad thing and should not be feared.

Deprivation Argument

This argument can be explained based on the Epicurus philosophy on what is bad or good. Epicurus was one of the many hedonists who had a strong opinion what can be classified as bad or good. According to Epicurus, anything that is associated with pleasure is good, while those associated with pain is bad ( Kaufman, 1996) . These are both intrinsically based. To mean, anything can only be classified as good or bad if they either bring pleasure or pain respectively. Equally, things can be classified as good or bad based on what they bring a person. For instance, a person who liked eating a banana because of the pleasure him or her get from eating the banana, the banana would be extrinsically good this is because of the joy than it generates in the person which now become intrinsically good ( Kaufman, 1996) .

The hedonists were people known to be in love with pleasure so much that they were thought to be people with no restraint for pleasure ( Kaufman, 1996) . It is true that their quest for pleasure was unquenchable. However, the reason Epicureans are used in defining good and bad is because he thought differently; to Epicurus him, it was not always about pleasure. He argued that sometimes what brought pleasure to people was equally able to bring the pain. So the act of being thought as people without restraint on pleasure was therefore wrong. For instance, he gives an analogy of overeating might lead to stomachic ache later; something that was pleasurable has brought the pain ( Kaufman, 1996) . According to Epicurus, therefore people had to have a measured life so that people could get pleasure without necessarily experiencing pain.

Because of Epicureans view about what can be considered good or bad, the state of being dead could not be bad as long as there was no life to live after death. According to Epicureans, anybody ceased to be living at the moment he dies and would not live again if there was no other place he or she was going to live an again ( Kaufman, 1996) . They said that if you ceased to exist, then there was no way you were going to experience pain nor pleasure. This means that death is actually nothing to us – it is not good nor bad – and therefore should not be feared. The essence that death cannot cause pain, however, they claimed could not actually mean that is a bad thing. And this, they became accustomed to as the Epicureans. Epicurus actually wrote a letter that signifies and explains that death was essentially nothing to us; 

Become accustomed to the belief that death is nothing to us. For all good and evil consists in sensation, but death is a deprivation of sensation . . . So death, the most terrifying of ills, is nothing to us, since so long as we exist death is not with us; but when death 1 comes, then we do not exist. It does not then concern either the living or the dead, since for the former it is not, and the latter are no more. (Letter to Menoecius, p. 31, Broome, 1993)

According to this letter written by Epicurus, we can actually get to the point where we see some arguments: First, according to Epicurus, something can only be classified as good or bad if there is some feeling form of sensation associated with or in one way or the other someone can experience some form of sensation, that is either intrinsically or extrinsically good or bad. According to Epicurus, therefore, death prevents everybody for the feeling of sensation and death itself is not a form of excitement unless the bereaved can feel some of the sensation. Other points that Epicurus tries to explain in the letter is that people should not be concerned with things that are neither good or bad and given that death is neither of the two, people should not fear death at whatever cost. These arguments can be classified as deprivation. By the rule of inference modulus tollens, this can be called an argument that is a form of deprivation. (Let assume is argument D1)

Epicurus is actually supported by Lucretius, one of the staunch hedonist. Lucretius says that death is nothing that should concern the human being even by the minimal aspects, in fact, he categorically claim that there is nothing the human being should fear about death ( Segal, 2014) . He reasons as indicated below;

For he whom evil is to befall, must in his own person exist at the very time it comes, if the misery and suffering are haply to have any place at all; but since death precludes this, and forbids him to be, upon whom the ills can be brought, you may be sure that we have nothing to fear after death, and that he who exists not, cannot become miserable, and that it matters not a whit whether he has been born into life at any other time, when immortal death has taken away his mortal life (F eldman, 1990).

Lucretius reasoning is mainly based on the fact that when someone ceases to exist, then the person has no place to miserable as others unless he or she is going to live in the afterlife, which for this case does not exist. According to Lucretius, it does not matter whether someone dies or not because the end justifies the mean – it doesn’t concern us because their no sensation that is directly linked to it: when a person dies he or she ceases to exist(Warren, 2001). Hence nothing can be good or bad for him or her, and this includes both the state of being dead or dying. 

It is noticeable that this reproduction of the argument doesn't unequivocally expect that nothing but sensations can be good or bad for us. We know given Lucretius' compositions that he in certainty made that presumption, and the entry under thought additionally uncovers this in saying "if the hopelessness and enduring are haply to have wherever by any means" ( Warren, 2001) . Be that as it may, how about we consider the rendition of the argument just composed since it is by all accounts broader than Epicurus' argument. Call this new argument D2.

From Lucretius argument, there are three main points and assumptions that he raises that help to argue that death is not bad. One, when a person dies, she or he ceases to exist after death. Two, if a person dies then nothing bad can happen to him or her both at the time of death and after death. Three, which is a final say, death is not bad to the person who dies both at the time of death and after death.

Looking at both Lucretius and Epicurus arguments, we realize that both are valid, however, if we decide to reject the two arguments then it would automatically mean that after death there is living – what is referred to us after life. In the afterlife, it can be assumed that the person who dies will still exist (According to Lucretius argument) and that there will be some sensation that the person who dies could still be feeling – the good and the bad. It is, however, believed that the issue of the afterlife is a contentious saying and does not hold water, therefore, in this case where we assume that there is no afterlife then death is neither bad nor good. It thus can be concluded that death assuming there is no afterlife, is not good or bad and therefore we should not fear it.

The symmetry argument

For a long time most researchers with the intention of proving that as long as there is no afterlife, death is not bad. In fact, most responses towards death have to use Epicurus theory of death. However, Lucretius brings forth another argument worth considering. The symmetry argument;

“ And just as in the time that went before we felt no pain—when Carthaginians came from all sides to wage war, and the world struck by the disturbing upheaval of war shook and quivered under the high vaults of heaven, and it was unclear whose kingdom should fall all men on the land and sea—so when we are no more, when the body and soul from which combination we are formed have come apart, then no doubt there will be nothing to us (who will not be then) which will be able to move our senses in the slightest, not even if earth and sea and sky are mixed together”. (Warren, 2001)

The symmetry argument brought up by Lucretius is based on pre-natal and post-natal situations. Lucretius argues that not being born is somewhat similar to being dead ( Segal, 2014) . Consequently, this denies the yet to be born child some form of pleasure. For example, consider the scenario of the Volkswagen car of 1910. Consider a person – say, John – liking the old models of car and more specifically the Volkswagen. He has various products form the past generation the 1910s. However, he cannot drive the Volkswagen outside his or her compound for fear of being embarrassed. 

In the assumption, that if the person in question lived in the 1910s, he would have been much happier because he or she could be driving the Volkswagen without fear of embarrassment. However, he or she is born in the 2000s. For being born in the 2000s, John has been deprived of the pleasures of driving the Volkswagen in 1910.

In respect to the scenario aforementioned, it is clear that it is against Epicurus argument because according to him it is just a misfortune for John not have been an adult at the time when the car was fashionable; when it was not viewed as an embarrassment. In fact, he could have lived a happy life in early 1910. This is what can be considered as the Lucretius symmetry argument which in essence means that, before we actually exist, that is before birth which is part of a human lifetime, should not be a concern to the people. Additionally, the time before birth (post-natal period) is actually an equivalent of after death. Therefore, it can be considered that any time after death should not be of our concern as a society. We should not care to look at it as if it is bad or not bad ( Segal, 2014) . 

In essence, Lucretius try to explain using his symmetrical argument that if we are not to be concerned about the prenatal existence, then we should also not be concerned about our post-natal experience. This, therefore, provides space for asking the question is death a bad or good thing. And if it is not a bad thing, why? 

In conclusion, both the deprivation and symmetry arguments make interesting premises that can be used to explain that death is actually not a bad thing. For example, according to Lucretius deprive arguments, there are two points which are important to answering the question of whether death is a bad thing. Lucretius says when a person ceases to exist, at that point that he or she dies, nothing bad can happen to him or her. As much as there are people who might oppose this argument, it holds water. To the people who ask the question whether death is bad, the question, “when is it bad?” can be applied. Death can be a bad thing when a person is already dead since the person doesn’t exist. It can as well not be bad to us when we are alive because when we live there is no looming of death. This an idea that is equally held by Epicurus, the father of pleasure. 

Epicurus also says that when we live death is not present, and when we die, we then cease to exist. He also says that a person who is dead cannot feel pleasure or pain. Therefore, death cannot be classified as a bad thing. A dead person just leaves the pain to the loved ones. To him, he feels nothing because he is already dead hence the feelings ceases. Epicurus is essentially saying that if something is bad for someone at a particular point in time, then maybe that bad thing did happen at the exact time. This also called the symmetrical argument.

This analogy can be explained using an example: suppose Caren want to start a business, but she doesn’t have money to do so. She is forced to source money from friends and banks since her parents are unable to help her out. The reason as to why the parents cannot help raise the money is because they used all their money including their pensions before Caren was born. To this, it is bad that Caren’s parents used all the money which could have helped her start her business. However, given that she was also not have been born at the time, it was an issue and wasn’t bad at all. Nonetheless, now Caren is feeling the pinch of her parents not saving money, a bad thing that had occurred a long time ago. 

This analogy brings an argument that to some extent contradicts the Lucretius deprive notion. The Lucretius argument placed it that nonexistence call for not a bad situation. To Lucretius, something that proves not to be wrong currently will probably not be bad in the future. On the contrary, the example of Caren proves otherwise. Now, using the symmetry argument, it can be classified if death is not bad for the people now then it will be bad in the future, probably when a person dies ( Warren, 2001) . However, all the analogies of death are very much dependent on the existence of afterlife as previously mentioned. In case there is an afterlife, the pleasure and pain will still be important hence death will either be good or bad. In the absence of an afterlife, therefore death is actually not a bad thing. Also, as explained by Lucretius, death should not be feared because when a person dies, he or she ceases to exist. This can apply in the Epicurus philosophy which claims that someone must be living to feel pain; hence lack of pain is lack of fear. 

References

Broome, J. (1993). Goodness is Reducible to Betterness the Evil of Death is the Value of Life.

Feldman, F. (1990). FM Kamm and the mirror of time:  Pacific Philosophical Quarterly ,  71 (1), 23-27.

Kaufman, F. (1996). Death and deprivation; or, why Lucretius' symmetry argument fails.  Australasian Journal of Philosophy ,  74 (2), 305-312.

Luper, S. (2009).  The philosophy of death : Cambridge University Press.

Segal, C. (2014).  Lucretius on death and anxiety: poetry and philosophy in De rerum natura : Princeton University Press.

Walters, G. (2004). Is there such a thing as a good death?  Palliative medicine ,  18 (5), 404-408.

Warren, J. (2001). Lucretius, Symmetry arguments, and fearing death:  Phronesis ,  46 (4), 466-491.